<!--quoteo(post=2040439:date=Dec 6 2012, 02:40 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 6 2012, 02:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm curious as to why every time skill comes up in NS2 is it the alien team people prioritize as being the 'skill side'. Marines team is piss-easy to play, and it's got far more to do with the god-awful mind-bogglingly terrible design direction in the game than it does with smashing your spacebar pretending some party trick you've been using for the last decade still somehow qualifies as skill.
And in case you're too dense to understand that - if everyone can do something, it no longer qualifies as skill. In competition, everyone can bunnyhop, so I'm curious as to why one feels that bunnyhopping represents some sort of skill-based advantage that's required for competition, when all it is is part of the status quo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
going by your logic, if both of us can swing a racket in tennis, there's no skill involved? you can swing a racket in different ways to manipulate how you want the ball to go. this is the same case for bunnyhopping. you can probably do it like everybody else, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to do it as well as the next person.
if you do know bunnyhopping, you'll know that "doing it well" means that you gain a much substantial speed increase compared to when you're "doing it worse". this speed difference is apparent across maps as big as those in ns1. it can mean arriving early or late to where you're needed most.
but hey, there's never going to be bunnyhopping in ns2, so who cares? :)
He's talking about alien-side skill indexing while demonstrating a poor understanding of how bunnyhop works so it's a pretty pointless debate to get in to.
<!--quoteo(post=2041113:date=Dec 6 2012, 01:56 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Dec 6 2012, 01:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041113"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Considering that this is exactly what happened to NS1, it should be fairly obvious to everyone that NS2 is tempting the same result.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ns1 is on an old engine. nothing "happened" to ns1
hell on any other day people usually blame combat mode for ns1 "death"
Same thing that happened to NS1, a game with too high of an entry skill requirement, and massively more skill potential compared to NS2, which honestly has almost 0 skill progression beyond aiming, so that means NS1 must have had less players a month after release than NS2 did?
Oh wait.
Its amazing how people are completely clueless to how a game is designed... To claim NS2 was designed around competitive play is absolutely ridiculous, and a complete, downright lie. Only someone with absolutely no idea how the game plays, and how competitive games play could make such an asinine statement. Show me a resource based RTS/FPS that hasnt had to deal with the exact same problems NS2 has... Even Nuclear Dawn with its absolutely 0 skill progression and dumbed down completely class based gameplay is dead.
Its a niche genre and is not going to be a massive hit game like COD of BF3, having a game with skill progression and high skill ceilings is not what makes it have poor player counts.
<!--quoteo(post=2041181:date=Dec 6 2012, 09:30 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Dec 6 2012, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041181"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Same thing that happened to NS1, a game with too high of an entry skill requirement, and massively more skill potential compared to NS2, which honestly has almost 0 skill progression beyond aiming, so that means NS1 must have had less players a month after release than NS2 did?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My patience, when it comes to reading these unintelligent trainwrecks of non-logic, is pretty much at an end.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2040731:date=Dec 5 2012, 07:31 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040731"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 failed because it's impenetrable, it's uninspired, and it runs poorly. People were quitting the game long before the pub scene got their ###### together enough to form a competitive scene, unless - what - you thought that kind of thing would spring out of the ground in the first week?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought I might post what a failed FPS/RTS game made by an Indie studio <a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=17710&from=1322726400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">looks like</a> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/Usf2Il.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Also, as I've pointed out before, the NS2 competitive community is actually doing <a href="http://www.ensl.org/contests/115" target="_blank">quite well</a>.
Then stop posting. You add nothing to discussions by just blaming comp players for NS2 not doing well compared to COD, which is a completely unrealistic expectation, and has absolutely nothing to do with comp players, even the NS2 devs have said this. In all honesty for a RTS/FPS game NS2 has done quite well.
And as for my statement, NS1 had more players after a year than NS2 does currently (looking at max for today).
If you want to play that kind of game, go ahead and play it.. no one here will miss you.
I didn't blame comp players for NS2 not doing well. I've defended games like COD from the asinine torrent of total made-up bull**** that comp players are spewing. Should I make a list of the kinds of idiocy that gets said?
- 'Casual players just play a game and then leave for the next one to come along.' - 'Casual games die after a year.' - 'If your game doesn't have a competitive scene it will die within a year.' - 'Competition makes a game, pubs don't.' - 'Nobody will ever play a game that doesn't have a high skill ceiling and bunnyhopping.'
The list of completely unsubstantiated garbage goes on and on. You people have massive ego problems. I've posted graphs of casual games that get badmouthed and that they're doing phenomenally well years later. I've posted plenty of competitive skill games that failed instantly, and they constitute the vast majority of skill-based shooters that have been released over the last few years - EVERY SINGLE ONE. I've yet to see any serious evidence that anything you people say is true. All you do is vomit generalities and stereotypes because you're not used to people actually standing up and calling out your bull**** when you say "Casual players don't care about a game beyond the first few months".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS1 had more players after a year than NS2 does currently<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was also nine years ago, and NS was also- no. You know what? **** it. Read a book. Puzzle out yourself why directly comparing the games is an ignorant thing to do, if you can.
NS1 was free? On a newly released platform called steam and it required you to own a copy of half-life, download and create a steam account, and to download and install NS yourself. The number of differences is huge but still your argument holds no water, and honestly im tired of your completely ###### attitude towards comp players. No one here is going on a tirade of how lower skill players should go 0-100 their first game. Referring to comp players as you people just sounds like were back in the 1950's, I think its you that needs to grow up, and realize that there will always be people better than you at something, video games included. That doesnt make a game bad or 'impenetrable'.
And the truth that you seem completely BLIND to is that a game like NS2, made casual or competitive, is never going to post the numbers like the games your comparing it to... Even making that comparision is idiotic... The competitive scene is what will make or break NS2, dening that is your own personal opinion, which while is something your entitled to, doesnt make it factual.
<!--quoteo(post=2041215:date=Dec 6 2012, 10:19 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Dec 6 2012, 10:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041215"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think its you that needs to grow up, and realize that there will always be people better than you at something, video games included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your argument boils down to "lol you're angry because you're bad, if you weren't bad you'd agree with me, L2P SCRUB PUB FGT NOOB"? What a compelling response to the paragraphs of arguments I've presented that have yet to be addressed in a meaningful fashion by any of your ilk.
Yeah I'll bet game companies are just <i>dying </i>to make games to attract your kind.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>The competitive scene is what will make or break NS2</b>, dening that is your own personal opinion, which while is something your entitled to, doesnt make it factual.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh god, make it stop, it hurts so much.
I'm still waiting for you people to show me all these super-competitive hyper-popular skill-based shooters that are cornering the market on competitive FPS games that weren't made 10 years ago. I already gave you a list of them that failed.
I'm really trying to wrap my mind around what kind of logjam is occurring inside your brain that prevents you from understanding all the words in that paragraph I just wrote. Are my sentences too long? Or do you understand and are just so oblivious that you're going to keep beating that pile of dirt and insisting that it's really a horse?
Did i say any of those words your trying to put in my mouth? All i said is people will outskill you in games, thats a general statement not referring to anyone... The fact that you take such insult from it seems to indicate that you have some kind of horrible assumptions made about comp players.
And again, anyone that says anything contrary to what YOUR OPINION is you completely flame, troll and insult. Do you have any valid arguments about other RTS/FPS games doing exceedingly well? No? ######, guess you better just post more COD/BF3 numbers and make random assumptions and its clearly 100% relevant.
<!--quoteo(post=2041203:date=Dec 6 2012, 11:07 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 6 2012, 11:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041203"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought I might post what a failed FPS/RTS game made by an Indie studio <a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=17710&from=1322726400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">looks like</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just out of interest, what exactly killed Nuclear Dawn?
I've heard a lot of complaints about shallow and boring gameplay and all that, but was there some reason sticking out even more than the others?
My biggest compliant about Nuclear Dawn was just how it decended into a turret vs player game. I do believe they improved that somewhat after some patches, but the classes offered little variety IMO and the game was pretty linear/boring too.
Considering all you have succeeded in doing is proving my point, I'm actually quite glad. Any time you wish to resume your discussion, feel free.
Your making blanket statements about competitve players and ego's, so I made a statement regarding all players in general. Seems pretty easy to connect those dots, maybe I over-estimated your IQ by thinking it was atleast in the double digits.
It is amusing watching you tag me with all these arguments, when I havent suggested a single one of those things. I never said COD ruining gaming (it only opened the market to a larger audience), but if you want to continue to slander me, go right ahead.
<!--quoteo(post=2041230:date=Dec 6 2012, 10:52 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Dec 6 2012, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041230"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Considering all you have succeeded in doing is proving my point, I'm actually quite glad. Any time you wish to resume your discussion, feel free.
Your making blanket statements about competitve players and ego's, so I made a statement regarding all players in general. Seems pretty easy to connect those dots, maybe I over-estimated your IQ by thinking it was atleast in the double digits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*snip* Play nice. - Mouse<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Such a gentleman, I can see why everyone here agrees with what your posting. Amazing how you can use every insult you can think of but somehow I'm the one being a kid. Any other insults you got lined up? Im somewhat curious now.
<!--quoteo(post=2041233:date=Dec 6 2012, 10:56 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Dec 6 2012, 10:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041233"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can see why everyone here agrees with what your posting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*snip* Play nice. - Mouse <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
NS2 has a lot of these "noobtube" equivalent gameplay mechanics; arguably most of the gameplay mechanics could be likened to it in being low skill and decent to high powered. I would of hoped NS2 was having higher player retention than it currently is if this video's thesis is correct; because anymore placating in favor of new players as opposed to gameplay hardly seems worth it if this is what retention level NS2 maintains while having very stale public gameplay. I'm biased for sure that I would rather have lower retention and better gameplay, but yeah it is a shame if you have <2000 concurrent players as your peak (although my original hope was NS2 could maintain 1500 players and I thought I was being optimistic about that so I guess I can't complain).
<!--quoteo(post=2041206:date=Dec 6 2012, 03:09 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 6 2012, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We can use 'quite well' to describe ENSL when it offers a five-digit prize draw instead of zero.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does a monetary prize have to do with anything? Or are you confusing competitive with e-sport?
Stop vomiting ad hominem attacks into this thread, it is extremely unproductive and does not support your argument in the least.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2041220:date=Dec 6 2012, 02:33 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Dec 6 2012, 02:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041220"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just out of interest, what exactly killed Nuclear Dawn?
I've heard a lot of complaints about shallow and boring gameplay and all that, but was there some reason sticking out even more than the others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its hard to know for sure, but I think it was a combo of - Games devolving into turretwarz - Having a bad comm ruined matches (see <a href="http://forums.interwavestudios.com/topic/4174-imbalance-issues-or-why-the-rts-gameplay-breaks-the-game/" target="_blank">this thread</a>) - A not insignificant list of minor bugs and performance issues that snowballed into one big problem - Vet/community elitism (see <a href="http://forums.interwavestudios.com/topic/4749-ugh-veteran-players/" target="_blank">this thread</a>)
Oh ###### he got one person to agree with him on the internet.... Thats clearly a huge majority.
In the end, I dont see how you can ignore the truth. NS2 is not super successful because its an RTS/FPS, thats the sole reason. Making a game like that be hugely successful just isnt possible. I would say performance isnt definately not helping, along with some of the bugs... But making an RTS/FPS a successful game on the scale of COD or BF3 just isnt possible.
It's pretty gloomy looking if those are the actual reasons Nuclear Dawn failed because I can hardly muster the enthusiasm to even try to argue NS2 doesn't have the exact same problems.
Hell even the turretwar thing to an extent I have a difficult time arguing against if I were to spectate the average 30 minute public game that goes on.
<!--quoteo(post=2041235:date=Dec 6 2012, 10:59 PM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Dec 6 2012, 10:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would of hoped NS2 was having higher player retention than it currently is if this video's thesis is correct; because anymore placating in favor of new players as opposed to gameplay hardly seems worth it if this is what retention level NS2 maintains while having very stale public gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One of the things I've said regarding NS2 is that its problem can be summed up as thus: If it was trying to be like NS1, it didn't do enough things similar. If it was trying to be its own game, it was too similar to NS1.
The game is different enough to have changed direction, and in that sense it lost what drove a lot of players towards NS1 in the first place. If it's the skill and competitive action, then so be it. However, the differences in NS2 weren't enough to do the opposite and bring new players to the game, and there's still too many concepts that are tied to the notion that it has to be like NS1, which held the game back from being able to take full advantage of all the features it has to offer. For example, we didn't get a sixth lifeform. A solid argument can be made to state where one would fit into the game - you could even probably put in two (midgame combat unit, and a caster unit). However, they kept the five-lifeform concept because "they were in NS1", and there's no new ones because they're obsessed with the idea of minimalism. Why have a caster unit when you could try to shove the Lerk peg through holes it doesn't quite fit through?
I quit playing NS1 long ago. If I still found NS1 fun, I'd be playing NS1 to this day. But I didn't, and most people who played NS1 got bored of it eventually. As such, the release of NS1.5 disguised as NS2 doesn't interest me, it would be the new stuff that would do that. But there is no new stuff. There's some power nodes and a pretty gimmicky flamethrower. Horray?
<!--quoteo(post=2041236:date=Dec 6 2012, 10:59 PM:name=Industry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Industry @ Dec 6 2012, 10:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What does a monetary prize have to do with anything? Or are you confusing competitive with e-sport?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As someone else entirely mentioned, every multiplayer vs. game is competitive. I've seen clans spring up for the most asinine games. As long as there's a multiplayer versus mode, people will compete. Putting a stupid tag in front of your name doesn't make your particular flavor of competition somehow any more righteous than that which takes place in a pub.
The only qualification of what makes a game go from sad kicking-the-can competition to being big-boy competition would be the presence of sponsors and monetary investment.
Unless you can prove that, we can stop using the term 'competition' altogether, because I'm having a hard time seeing what makes the clowns playing in the ENSL somehow 'better' than the clowns playing in pubs. Both of them end their games the same way, with a screen saying 'horray you won (or lost)!'.
It's pretty gloomy looking if those are the actual reasons Nuclear Dawn failed because I can hardly muster the enthusiasm to even try to argue NS2 doesn't have the exact same problems.
Hell even the turretwar thing to an extent I have a difficult time arguing against if I were to spectate the average 30 minute public game that goes on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It worries me too as I see similarities with NS2. However, those issues were mostly an order of magnitude worse with ND than NS2. Add in that NS2 had a much better release and much higher sustained playercounts makes me feel better that NS2 won't turn into ND. Also, that big spike in playercount occurred as a result of a Steam free weekend.
Additionally, I could be completely wrong about what killed ND, since I can't find any data to support one reason or another and most people who quit playing ND didn't post their reasons on the forums.
<!--quoteo(post=2040370:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:12 AM:name=Rokiyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rokiyo @ Dec 5 2012, 08:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040370"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For anyone interested in game balance, I strongly recommend you watch this episode and I welcome you to post your thoughts below.
The way that was written and delivered reminds me of propaganda or conspiracy theory material, mixed in with tongue-in-cheek political comics.
Even though there is some validity in what the underlying message is, I have no idea why a website would continue to sponsor and publish a self-righteous ass such as the author and designer of those comics. They're intellectually as offensive as their "extra credit" title is.
The value of that guy's opinion is, in reality, less valuable than the opinion of thousands of professionals who are involved in game design. As much as he probably feels that he's enlightening the game industry and bringing in a fresh breath of ingenuity and cleverness, I would much rather see him design a game rather than publish mischievous rants about "what is wrong with games these days."
If you want to see great game design in action, I'd recommend Terry Cavanagh's creations. In particular, I've had more fun and been more impressed by VVVVVV than most other games in the past 5 years - which is telling considering the graphics and sounds could probably run well on a mid 80's machine. World Of Goo comes in as a close second, and maybe Harvest: Massive Encounter a third.
Snarky game critics are a dime a dozen. You only have to look at one of the thousands of game forums to come to that conclusion.
Those are my thoughts.
-------
As far as NS2 goes, I think considering the extremely small development team, limited funding, etc. etc. they've delivered an AWESOME game with good potential for even more refinement. There might be problems with balancing and polish, but overall it's a pretty compelling package.
Is it as complex as titles created by experienced, well-funded studios, funded by millions of publishing funds and sales? No. It will probably never be. But for what it is, it's a lot of fun.
Comments
And in case you're too dense to understand that - if everyone can do something, it no longer qualifies as skill. In competition, everyone can bunnyhop, so I'm curious as to why one feels that bunnyhopping represents some sort of skill-based advantage that's required for competition, when all it is is part of the status quo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
going by your logic, if both of us can swing a racket in tennis, there's no skill involved? you can swing a racket in different ways to manipulate how you want the ball to go. this is the same case for bunnyhopping. you can probably do it like everybody else, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to do it as well as the next person.
if you do know bunnyhopping, you'll know that "doing it well" means that you gain a much substantial speed increase compared to when you're "doing it worse". this speed difference is apparent across maps as big as those in ns1. it can mean arriving early or late to where you're needed most.
but hey, there's never going to be bunnyhopping in ns2, so who cares? :)
ns1 is on an old engine. nothing "happened" to ns1
hell on any other day people usually blame combat mode for ns1 "death"
Oh wait.
Its amazing how people are completely clueless to how a game is designed... To claim NS2 was designed around competitive play is absolutely ridiculous, and a complete, downright lie. Only someone with absolutely no idea how the game plays, and how competitive games play could make such an asinine statement. Show me a resource based RTS/FPS that hasnt had to deal with the exact same problems NS2 has... Even Nuclear Dawn with its absolutely 0 skill progression and dumbed down completely class based gameplay is dead.
Its a niche genre and is not going to be a massive hit game like COD of BF3, having a game with skill progression and high skill ceilings is not what makes it have poor player counts.
My patience, when it comes to reading these unintelligent trainwrecks of non-logic, is pretty much at an end.
I thought I might post what a failed FPS/RTS game made by an Indie studio <a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=17710&from=1322726400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">looks like</a>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Usf2Il.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Also, as I've pointed out before, the NS2 competitive community is actually doing <a href="http://www.ensl.org/contests/115" target="_blank">quite well</a>.
And as for my statement, NS1 had more players after a year than NS2 does currently (looking at max for today).
If you want to play that kind of game, go ahead and play it.. no one here will miss you.
- 'Casual players just play a game and then leave for the next one to come along.'
- 'Casual games die after a year.'
- 'If your game doesn't have a competitive scene it will die within a year.'
- 'Competition makes a game, pubs don't.'
- 'Nobody will ever play a game that doesn't have a high skill ceiling and bunnyhopping.'
The list of completely unsubstantiated garbage goes on and on. You people have massive ego problems. I've posted graphs of casual games that get badmouthed and that they're doing phenomenally well years later. I've posted plenty of competitive skill games that failed instantly, and they constitute the vast majority of skill-based shooters that have been released over the last few years - EVERY SINGLE ONE. I've yet to see any serious evidence that anything you people say is true. All you do is vomit generalities and stereotypes because you're not used to people actually standing up and calling out your bull**** when you say "Casual players don't care about a game beyond the first few months".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS1 had more players after a year than NS2 does currently<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was also nine years ago, and NS was also- no. You know what? **** it. Read a book. Puzzle out yourself why directly comparing the games is an ignorant thing to do, if you can.
And the truth that you seem completely BLIND to is that a game like NS2, made casual or competitive, is never going to post the numbers like the games your comparing it to... Even making that comparision is idiotic... The competitive scene is what will make or break NS2, dening that is your own personal opinion, which while is something your entitled to, doesnt make it factual.
So your argument boils down to "lol you're angry because you're bad, if you weren't bad you'd agree with me, L2P SCRUB PUB FGT NOOB"? What a compelling response to the paragraphs of arguments I've presented that have yet to be addressed in a meaningful fashion by any of your ilk.
Yeah I'll bet game companies are just <i>dying </i>to make games to attract your kind.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>The competitive scene is what will make or break NS2</b>, dening that is your own personal opinion, which while is something your entitled to, doesnt make it factual.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh god, make it stop, it hurts so much.
I'm still waiting for you people to show me all these super-competitive hyper-popular skill-based shooters that are cornering the market on competitive FPS games that weren't made 10 years ago. I already gave you a list of them that failed.
I'm really trying to wrap my mind around what kind of logjam is occurring inside your brain that prevents you from understanding all the words in that paragraph I just wrote. Are my sentences too long? Or do you understand and are just so oblivious that you're going to keep beating that pile of dirt and insisting that it's really a horse?
And again, anyone that says anything contrary to what YOUR OPINION is you completely flame, troll and insult. Do you have any valid arguments about other RTS/FPS games doing exceedingly well? No? ######, guess you better just post more COD/BF3 numbers and make random assumptions and its clearly 100% relevant.
Just out of interest, what exactly killed Nuclear Dawn?
I've heard a lot of complaints about shallow and boring gameplay and all that, but was there some reason sticking out even more than the others?
Play nice.
- Mouse<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Your making blanket statements about competitve players and ego's, so I made a statement regarding all players in general. Seems pretty easy to connect those dots, maybe I over-estimated your IQ by thinking it was atleast in the double digits.
It is amusing watching you tag me with all these arguments, when I havent suggested a single one of those things. I never said COD ruining gaming (it only opened the market to a larger audience), but if you want to continue to slander me, go right ahead.
Your making blanket statements about competitve players and ego's, so I made a statement regarding all players in general. Seems pretty easy to connect those dots, maybe I over-estimated your IQ by thinking it was atleast in the double digits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*snip*
Play nice.
- Mouse<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->*snip*
Play nice.
- Mouse <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
What does a monetary prize have to do with anything? Or are you confusing competitive with e-sport?
Stop vomiting ad hominem attacks into this thread, it is extremely unproductive and does not support your argument in the least.
I've heard a lot of complaints about shallow and boring gameplay and all that, but was there some reason sticking out even more than the others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its hard to know for sure, but I think it was a combo of
- Games devolving into turretwarz
- Having a bad comm ruined matches (see <a href="http://forums.interwavestudios.com/topic/4174-imbalance-issues-or-why-the-rts-gameplay-breaks-the-game/" target="_blank">this thread</a>)
- A not insignificant list of minor bugs and performance issues that snowballed into one big problem
- Vet/community elitism (see <a href="http://forums.interwavestudios.com/topic/4749-ugh-veteran-players/" target="_blank">this thread</a>)
In the end, I dont see how you can ignore the truth. NS2 is not super successful because its an RTS/FPS, thats the sole reason. Making a game like that be hugely successful just isnt possible. I would say performance isnt definately not helping, along with some of the bugs... But making an RTS/FPS a successful game on the scale of COD or BF3 just isnt possible.
It's pretty gloomy looking if those are the actual reasons Nuclear Dawn failed because I can hardly muster the enthusiasm to even try to argue NS2 doesn't have the exact same problems.
Hell even the turretwar thing to an extent I have a difficult time arguing against if I were to spectate the average 30 minute public game that goes on.
One of the things I've said regarding NS2 is that its problem can be summed up as thus: If it was trying to be like NS1, it didn't do enough things similar. If it was trying to be its own game, it was too similar to NS1.
The game is different enough to have changed direction, and in that sense it lost what drove a lot of players towards NS1 in the first place. If it's the skill and competitive action, then so be it. However, the differences in NS2 weren't enough to do the opposite and bring new players to the game, and there's still too many concepts that are tied to the notion that it has to be like NS1, which held the game back from being able to take full advantage of all the features it has to offer. For example, we didn't get a sixth lifeform. A solid argument can be made to state where one would fit into the game - you could even probably put in two (midgame combat unit, and a caster unit). However, they kept the five-lifeform concept because "they were in NS1", and there's no new ones because they're obsessed with the idea of minimalism. Why have a caster unit when you could try to shove the Lerk peg through holes it doesn't quite fit through?
I quit playing NS1 long ago. If I still found NS1 fun, I'd be playing NS1 to this day. But I didn't, and most people who played NS1 got bored of it eventually. As such, the release of NS1.5 disguised as NS2 doesn't interest me, it would be the new stuff that would do that. But there is no new stuff. There's some power nodes and a pretty gimmicky flamethrower. Horray?
As someone else entirely mentioned, every multiplayer vs. game is competitive. I've seen clans spring up for the most asinine games. As long as there's a multiplayer versus mode, people will compete. Putting a stupid tag in front of your name doesn't make your particular flavor of competition somehow any more righteous than that which takes place in a pub.
The only qualification of what makes a game go from sad kicking-the-can competition to being big-boy competition would be the presence of sponsors and monetary investment.
Unless you can prove that, we can stop using the term 'competition' altogether, because I'm having a hard time seeing what makes the clowns playing in the ENSL somehow 'better' than the clowns playing in pubs. Both of them end their games the same way, with a screen saying 'horray you won (or lost)!'.
NS1 already had a lot of rules for a fps game, and NS2 added a bunch on top of that, they don't make a lot of sense most of the time either.
It's pretty gloomy looking if those are the actual reasons Nuclear Dawn failed because I can hardly muster the enthusiasm to even try to argue NS2 doesn't have the exact same problems.
Hell even the turretwar thing to an extent I have a difficult time arguing against if I were to spectate the average 30 minute public game that goes on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It worries me too as I see similarities with NS2. However, those issues were mostly an order of magnitude worse with ND than NS2. Add in that NS2 had a much better release and much higher sustained playercounts makes me feel better that NS2 won't turn into ND. Also, that big spike in playercount occurred as a result of a Steam free weekend.
Additionally, I could be completely wrong about what killed ND, since I can't find any data to support one reason or another and most people who quit playing ND didn't post their reasons on the forums.
<a href="http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill" target="_blank">http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way that was written and delivered reminds me of propaganda or conspiracy theory material, mixed in with tongue-in-cheek political comics.
Even though there is some validity in what the underlying message is, I have no idea why a website would continue to sponsor and publish a self-righteous ass such as the author and designer of those comics. They're intellectually as offensive as their "extra credit" title is.
The value of that guy's opinion is, in reality, less valuable than the opinion of thousands of professionals who are involved in game design. As much as he probably feels that he's enlightening the game industry and bringing in a fresh breath of ingenuity and cleverness, I would much rather see him design a game rather than publish mischievous rants about "what is wrong with games these days."
If you want to see great game design in action, I'd recommend Terry Cavanagh's creations. In particular, I've had more fun and been more impressed by VVVVVV than most other games in the past 5 years - which is telling considering the graphics and sounds could probably run well on a mid 80's machine. World Of Goo comes in as a close second, and maybe Harvest: Massive Encounter a third.
Snarky game critics are a dime a dozen. You only have to look at one of the thousands of game forums to come to that conclusion.
Those are my thoughts.
-------
As far as NS2 goes, I think considering the extremely small development team, limited funding, etc. etc. they've delivered an AWESOME game with good potential for even more refinement. There might be problems with balancing and polish, but overall it's a pretty compelling package.
Is it as complex as titles created by experienced, well-funded studios, funded by millions of publishing funds and sales? No. It will probably never be. But for what it is, it's a lot of fun.